WASHINGTON — Texas voters still don't know when the state's primary elections will take place, and they don't even know when they'll know, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Friday. They need a scorecard to keep track of the three courts involved in making the decision, and a chessboard to follow the steps of all the players.

The latest actions

The high court threw the date into more doubt when it ordered a San Antonio panel of federal judges that had drawn new redistricting maps back to the redrawing board to base another set of maps on ones passed by the Legislature earlier this year.

(This will all make sense soon.)

The San Antonio court set a hearing for Feb. 1, after which Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sought to move up its schedule so new interim maps can be filed by the end of January, allowing the primaries to take place April 3.

Originally scheduled for March 6, the primaries were moved as it became obvious all the issues could not be settled in time for the March date.

Meanwhile, the original maps the Legislature drew up are in the middle of a two-week trial in the District of Columbia to determine if they are even legal under the Voting Rights Act.

What created the chaos

Because the state's population grew so much over the past decade, it was given four new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Republican-controlled Legislature drew new maps earlier this year that realigned the state's congressional districts, adding the new ones. It also reconfigured state House and Senate seats.

But Democrats and minority groups sued, charging that though the population growth was 90 percent minority, the way the districts were redrawn actually diluted the ability of minorities to gain new seats.

The court — the San Antonio panel now back at Square 1 — ruled the Legislature's maps could not be used in an election until they were “precleared” by a federal court in Washington as required by the Voting Rights Act.

The state objected to the interim maps and succeeded in asking the Supreme Court to block them from being put into effect.

Meanwhile, the Washington court was — and still is — wrestling with the question of whether the Legislature's maps are discriminatory.

What it boils down to

No one knows when the primaries will be held, or what the state's congressional and state House and Senate districts look like. At some point, between the D.C. court deciding if the original maps are valid and the San Antonio court working on redrawing acceptable new ones, there will be a primary.

Jose Garza, who argued the case before the Supreme Court last week for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, said the Supreme Court order gives the San Antonio court more guidance on how new political districts can be drawn.

“We could come up with something very similar to the San Antonio maps,” Garza said. “The court just has to explain it better.”

“I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and the point person for the GOP congressional delegation on redistricting.

“I hope that the court will now draw a map that accurately reflects the makeup of Texas and respects the maps drawn by the Texas Legislature,” he said.

Spokespeople for both the Republican and Democratic state parties expressed hope that the quick ruling would allow the lower court to redraw maps and avoid another delay.

But Perales cautioned that “they cannot rubber-stamp the Texas plan. We foresee going back to court in San Antonio. We're confident any subsequent map will not discriminate against Latino voters.”

A two-week trial in the District of Columbia began Monday to determine whether the Legislature's maps discriminate.

Judge Rosemary Collyer, one of three District of Columbia justices deciding on the legality of the Legislature's maps, said from the bench Friday that there would be little impact on the ongoing trial.

“It may mean we are not in a race with the Supreme Court to make our decision,” Collyer said.